It's been a while since I've posted something focused at a primarily English audience. Apologies for the untimeliness.
Firstly, I'd like to discuss something very broad, the idea of a viewpoint, particularly that held by an individual.
(Skip to "In Conclusion" if you don't want to experience plausible sudden drowsiness.)
A Pedagogic Example
Let's start by having a topic.
Let's call it topic A. Now for topic A, we will imagine two viewpoints: agree and disagree; put more even more simply, Y(indicating yes) and N(indicating no). Many would agree though, that in the real, complex world of human problems and opinions, that the area between the Y and N is truly a spectrum and depending on the topic, the viewpoints for it can range anywhere within that spectrum.
In schools it is commonly taught nowadays that one should take to the middle of this viewpoint spectrum, in order to understand both viewpoints, the Y and the N as thoroughly as possible.
But, I believe there is one problem to this method.
It assumes that area directly between the Y and N viewpoints is a sort of hard transition between viewpoints - allowing for the one who has taken to the middle of the viewpoint spectrum to accurately understand both viewpoint Y and N, whereas the viewpoint spectrum is in actuality (as is characteristic of a spectrum) a gradient.
In the sense that, looking at the middle of the viewpoint spectrum does not give a clear picture of Y nor of N, but a gradient shift (as apposed to a hard transition) of fifty percent Y and fifty percent N.
A combination that is distinctly unique to the the one-hundred percent Y, one-hundred percent N mix imagined by some as the middle of the viewpoint spectrum.
In essence, the middle of two viewpoints (the middle of the viewpoint spectrum) does not accurately represent two viewpoints in their entirety, but rather a distinct entity comprised of aspects of both.
A Situational Example
Let's start again by having a topic.
This time it's Muslims are Good. Now for Muslims are Good, we will have again two viewpoints: agree and disagree; put more even more simply, Y(indicating yes) and N(indicating no).
Remembering that, in essence, the middle of two viewpoints (the middle of the viewpoint spectrum) does not accurately represent two viewpoints in their entirety, but rather a distinct entity comprised of aspects of both, if we attempt to "see both sides of the story" or assume that the middle of our viewpoint spectrum for Muslims are Good represents both the Y and the N accurately, we are left with an inevitable lack of information regarding the actuality and intensity of viewpoints Y and N [as what we have actually observed is a separate entity, (which can be thought of as an entirely separate viewpoint, {consisting of about fifty percent N and fifty percent Y.})]
In Conclusion
The intended takeaway from this is simply that, if you really want to understand a topic or issue thoroughly, you have to look at it from as many different viewpoints as possible. Because every possible stance on an issue is a separate way of looking at said issue, and not an accurate way to understand said issue as a whole.
So I am thinking of some simple , yet elegant four dimensional construct. A tree in a garden, exhibiting its growth, care, and interaction with its universe through a window of time. One might walk around the tree to perceive different aspects of this multidimensional object, but indeed our minds will insist on identifying it as a tree, perhaps even Naming It using perfidious conjunctions of Latinate to fix its place among some superimposed hierarchy of some hoity segment of society. Yet despite the soft wind blowing the subtle perfume of the needles, the almost unheard rustle of unknown parts, you feel this cognitive experience is linked to something larger than all of your senses, all of your perceptions, all of your views of this singular tree from every possible angle from every possible instant. And as you begin your quest to find that elusive thought that has beguiled you, heart and soul, your perceptions of that old reality must be abandoned. Sacrificed. Slaughtered. With love, of course, with love.
ReplyDeleteI like the thinking here! As a lobbyist and priest I have numerous opportunities to realize the importance of nuances in arguments and the very critical nature of viewpoint! It is critical that we not dig in our heals in our own viewpoint to such an extent that we cannot hear the other.
ReplyDelete